|
The ecological arguments for non-procreation or the extinction of the human race don't hold water, I feel. We know that the earth, absent humans, will be incinerated in a couple billion years anyway as the sun becomes a red giant and expands. Then there won't be any life at all, and the whole thing will be basically pointless. If you value the existence of life in the universe, or the continued perpetuation of the Earth's biodiversity, you'd realize that humankind existing is Earth's ecosystem's best shot for long-term survival. We only get one shot; we don't know for a fact that intelligent life will evolve a second time after we're gone, so I think we owe it to the planet to not go extinct.
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no I'm arguing specifically that the fact that people think their lives are good is not a trustworthy metric, because if people didn't think their lives were worth living they would die, which suggests that the people who are alive are the ones most resistant to believing that their lives aren't worth living, not necessarily that they are the ones with the best lives. Do you think it is more likely that humans have objectively good lives, or simply that they have evolved a cognitive bias to make them incapable of recognizing that their lives are bad? While still experiencing pain constantly? But that's circular logic. Specifically, it's the fallacy of Begging the Question . You're assuming with the premise that suffering is universal and constant, and rationalizing how everyone isn't killing themselves based off of that, which then justifies your premise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:25
|
|